What screen resolution are you using?

[ablang]

Since I have a 14" SVGA monitor, mine can only be 640 x 480.

[howste]

I have a 14" at home that I regularly use at 1024x768. And it's actually readable. It makes those free ISP banners pretty small. I think it's more of a video card/monitor combination issue than just monitor.

[djurom]

1. Your video card has to support resolutions higher than 640x480 with adapter (new one) default @75-160Hz.
2. Your monitor should support at least 800x600 if it is newer than '95.
Mine is '97 and it supports max 1152x768@85Hz

[Win_98]

I think 14' are capable of even 1024 resolution but you can't see anything! so why bother, even at 800 thing are too puny on such small monitor. at 17' I have my at 800 resolution. once I get 19' or 21' I will start using 1024

[MASTOURA]

I think the "standard" for desktop operations is 1024*768, since the 17" monitors are now pretty cheap. Gaming mostly uses 800*600. Anything below that is really bad, especially for work. You lose all benefits of the "windows" of Windows.

M.

[flash4master]

hehe, i remember doin this thread a while back, still runnin 1280*1024 on my 17" monitor

[Warthog]

1024*768 on 19" FD Trinitron monitor with a 64mb Geforce2 GTS

Warthog

[jl123]

1024*768 on a 17" HP M70 monitor. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

I know how you feel about that Warthog. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

But!!! I'm not using a HP computer anymore. I'm using my costume built Duron 600@650(for now). http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Aren't you guys proud of me? j/k

~Joel

[Jeff7]

640x480 on a 15" monitor. Anything higher, and everything is just so small I have trouble reading it, even at a foot to a foot and a half from the monitor.
I do go higher for games though - 800x600, or maybe 1024x768.

[OuTpaTienT]

1280x1024x32bit color @ 85hz. 19" monitor.

[Mntsnow]

1600x1200x32 on my Viewsonic 21" at home (PF810)
1280x1024x32 on my Viewsonic 19" at work (PF790)

I love the space http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Mntsnow (edited 09-22-2000).]

[drn]

1600x1200 32 bit on 24inch
1280x1024 32bit on 4 17 inch
1024x768 32 bit on 15 inch
800x600 16 bit on 14 inch
got to love the room at 1600x1200
all of then are Sony

[

[This message has been edited by drn (edited 09-22-2000).]

[BBA]

1600x1200 normal, sometimes 2048x1536 when I have a lot of stuff to do and open at once...

All on my 19" Gateway VX900.

[SuperHappyFunMan]

1152*864*32*75hz(I sooo want a 21" monitor!!)

[[Neo770]]

1024*768 85Hz on a 17" Diamond view

1280*1024 60Hz when working with graphics.

both at 32bit

[CATWATCH]

800x600 32 bit on 12.1" lcd panel

[M1pilot]

1024x768, 100hz, 32bit on a 17" AOC Spectrum.

-M1pilot

[NDC]

1600x1200 21" monitor 32bit
1280X1024 17" monitor 32bit
1024x1024 17" monitor 16bit

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Variable]

14" Monitor 800x600 32bit
13,3" TFT 1024x768 32bit

[Beemers]

This might be a little off topic but when you make up a web page you must make it up in 640 X 480 for scalability. The larger resolution screens don't have a problem with this design but the smaller screens will have a scrollbar at the bottom if a higher resolution is used to design the page. In addition the main table should be at 92%. I figure it's common courtesy to the smaller screen size surfers.

Cheers!

[Variable]

Mainstream WebDesign is done nowadays in 800x600

[GroundZero3]

i have a 17 ince at 600x800 i can't really stand those high resoultion for some reason they irrate me.

[Beemers]

If you don't learn something everyday, you're doing it wrong. Thanks Variable.

[jaida]

1280*1024 32 bit on my 17 incher

[Wiruz]

1024x768 @ 16 bit - 85 Hz on Marvel G400

17" AOC Spectrum 7Glr - love that monitor - vey cheap

~Wiruz

[kljucd1]

Hi,
I am running mine at 1280x1024 and it looks pretty cool.I can read everything very easily.
Thanks Daniel...

[djurom]

Well Beemers, nowadays web pages are commonly at 800x600~1024x768. I found somewhere warez site that has 1600x1200 "best viewed" tag but that is just sick http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
I'm using at work my new Trinitron 19" 1600x1200*32@100

[This message has been edited by djurom (edited 09-23-2000).]

[jpheg]

Here's a shameless plug:

My 17" Optiquest Q75 is running on a voodoo3 3500 @69Hz/16-bit at 1600x1200 and my desktop text is razor-sharp! This is probably the best Monitor bang-4-buck I have ever seen in the 17" range.
--------------------->Only $217!

jpheg

[Dark_Warthog]

1280x960 on 17" ILYAMA monitor, really nice quiet picture, i really reccomend it!!

[FrozenLiquidity]

I run my desktop in 1280*1024@100Hz with 32-bit color on my 19".

THe text is small, but still readable, and I have to use Windows' large mouse pointers so my mouse does not get lost. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

FrozenLiquidity

[Beemers]

And how does a web page look on a 14" or 15" monitor that has been designed at 800 X 600 / 1024 X 768 ? You get a scroll bar if you are at a lower resolution. When you create a web page you are creating it for others to view. Yes there are fewer 14" monitors out there now but there are still quite a few 15". A lot of us that post here want bigger and better. i want a 21" myself but am holding out until they improve the flat screen a little more. The general population on the net doesn't care. They are quite content with their small monitor.

When I hit a web site and a scroll bar appears at the bottom of my screen, I figure that person is new at web page design.
Times are a changing of course so it is expected that someday no one will be viewing on a 14". 800 X 600 sounds quite fesable to me. I design at this myself but with everything contained within a table set at 92% of page and I watch my line breaks. This makes it scalable to all.

Web TV is designed at 640 X 480. I was dealing with the designers at photocast.com for a while and this is where I picked up the scalability attitude.

I'm running a NEC MultiSync A700, 17" set @ 800 X 600. I've seen what $100.00 or $200.00 will buy you. I have a work station here that has the room for 2 or 3 computers and monitors. I've had the cheapies sitting side by side mine and they don't even come close in colour or clarity. You get what you pay for.

Cheers!



[This message has been edited by Beemers (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

1024x768x32bit on 19" Gateway EV910 VooDoo3

My 19" was the best investment I ever made!( other than that extra RAM ) next monitor will be as large as I can afford!

I am new to web design and my site is made for 800x600 minimum ( sorry )

You can pick up a 17" monitor at a computer show for around $100 nowadays.

[tonym]

Mr. Mojo has hit on the Holy Grail of computer use! Ergonomics!!

Once you've got reasonable processing power, the best investments that you can get are a good, large monitor, a quality keyboard and a comfy mouse.

You'll kick yourself for not having bought that 19/21" monitor sooner. And for what it saves in eyestrain, the cost differential for a 17 to 19" is chump change!!

Oh, yeah...I use 1024x768x32bitsx100Hz on my 19" and 21" monitors!


Tony

[rotax]

1280x1024 32bit @ 100hz on viewsonic pf-815 22"

[Rat]

NEC 17" 800x600 @ 85hz 24 bit. forced to use this considering I on a Compaq Deskpro with onboard video. This will change in two weeks when I get my new system... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Rat (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Undertow]

1280x1024 @91Mhz on a 19in SAMSUN SyncMaster 950p. Absolutely a beatiful monitor for a even more beautiful price. Anyone in the market for a 19in, go for the SyncMaster, it is truly the master. Rated by PCWorld as the #1 monitor, 5 ranks ahead of the Sony flatscreen. Very good graphics, impressive refresh rates and unbeatable text and web page viewing. Very affordable.

-One **** happy customer, Undertow

[OuTpaTienT]

What's a quiet picture?

[Warthog]

An imposter! Name stealer! j/k http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Warthog

[Wilan Wong]

1280x1024 res with 32-bit colour

[otheos]

The idea is to use the monitor's natural resolution. If you use less you bin the pixels and it seems coars, if you use more you interpolate and looks blury. Obviously in the latter case there is an amount of interpolation that the monitor can take before the image actually looks bad.

Typically:
14" 640x480(old) 800x600(new)
15" 800x600(old) 1024x768(new)
17" 1024x768(old) 1280x1024(new)
19" 1280x1024(old) 1600x1200(new).

So new monitors of the same size have more pixels (phosphorus cells) and thus a higher natural resolution.

The closer you stay to this value the sharper the image. Also at this value the monitor usually operates at max frequency, and the frequency goes down as it takes longer to interpolate/sweep in larger resolutions.

My crappy 17" Sony (DON't EVER BUY SONY) does 1024x768 (natural) @ 85Hz and this is what I use it at. If I take it to 1280x1024 I have to take it down to 60Hz and the image is both small and blury.
14"

[blind to truth]

The highest ive achieved on my computers was 1024x768 i believe. For the longest time ive been using a 512k video card and i only had two options-big or smaller. And i only had 256 colors so that wasn't much fun http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

[Ironforge]

1152x864x32bpp@100hz

Mitsubishi DiamondTron NF 19"

[Savant]

I use 1024x768 @ 90hz 32bit color on my 15"s
800x600 @ 85hz 8bit color on my 14" (server)
got to use a 19" of a friends for a bit when he sent his comp for me to look at, ran great at 1280x1024 @ 90hz 32bit, now I know I need a 19" princeton graphics too! lol

I can't stand stuff under 75-80hz so frequently I cant use highest res...

[saimyc]

WOW! I'm the only one at 864x480 32bit, 75Hz
I have no problems, Digiview 17"
So what's wrong with me?

[Jim200]

1152 x 864 @ 85Hz
KDS AV195-T 19"

[Barney]

I have a 15" monitor.It does 640x480x32 @ 120Hz,800x600x32 @ 100Hz,1024x768x32 @ 75Hz and 1280x1024x32 @ 60Hz.Btw,even at 1280x1024 it's VERY,I mean VERY sharp.I think that's really good for a 15".

I am supposed to get a 17" half a year ago.That guy would repair it for me.In fact he repaired it half a year ago,but I will get it back,and I will not pay for the repair job!Btw,my brother bought that thing for $5,because it was broken.He bought a cable for $5,and let that guy repair it.That already took so long he already got another one and said I would get the monitor when it comes back.I think I really should go after that guy now.I can actually even get $ out of it,I could sell my 15".There are crazy people who would pay about $100 for it.

Ronald

[This message has been edited by Barney (edited 09-30-2000).]

[Variable]

I have a 14" Monitor from 93?/94? that even does 1920x1200 @32bit but then the picture is so samll you almot can't read anything!
800x600 is just right for me on my 14" Monitor.

cool°
Variable

[neo_otyugh]

1600x1200 at 80hz, 32 bit color, nokia 445xi...sweet 21 incher

[Win_98]

Hmm using 24bit or 32bit slow down your computer to a crawl. I guess you guy have such fast computer that it matter little. I don't think you can tell any difference between 16bit,24bit and 32bit because we can't see anymore then 65536 color. I alway use 16bit because it much faster and it use alot less memory resources. For some of you that have low resouces problem, setting to 16bit may solve it.

[otheos]

24bit is true color, what the eye can see. 16bit is not bad, but you can tell the difference. any 4MB card will do 24bit @1024x768 without affecting system performance.

[elroy]

I run 800 X 600 on a new HP 17" M70 monitor
and on an HP 15". I would have run it on my old 14" but the icons were fuzzy so I had to stay at 640 X 480 on it.

[lonestar]

hmm wonder what freud would say about this thread?

[Savant]

you can do 1024x768 24bit on a 4MB card with no performance loss, I would know- I do.

[the_deacon]

1280 x 1024 on my 17", i want a 19" now badly because it's starting to look really small. any one know a good deal on one?

[voogru]

1024x768x64
any higher and I Get the Scrambled eggs!